Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet is doubtless delighted to have the Conservative Party of Canada onside to help him out (Photo: Facebook/Yves-François Blanchet).

Who can forget that time in December 2008 when Conservatives in the House of Commons recoiled in horror at the thought of a Liberal-NDP coalition government surviving thanks to a written pledge of support from the Bloc Québécois?

Former federal Liberal leader Stephane Dion (Photo: David J. Climenhaga).

With a vote of confidence looming, the Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, called the deal signed on Dec. 1 that year by Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, NDP leader Jack Layton and the Bloc’s Gilles Duceppe a reckless scheme in which the Liberals would attempt to govern subject to a veto by “socialists and separatists.”

Quelle horreur! 

Hardly an hour passed without some Conservative supporter in Alberta screeching about the danger of sitting down to sup with a separatist. Judging from the tone of the brouhaha about the coalition’s junior partners here in suburban Alberta, local Conservatives clearly saw Duceppe as the Devil and the Dippers as his dupes.

If Governor General Michaëlle Jean had let the three Opposition leaders’ vote of confidence proceed, as democracy and Parliamentary tradition demanded, Mr. Dion would have been prime minister, the Liberals would have mostly run the show, the NDP would have got a quarter of the cabinet seats, and the Bloc would have held up the rather rickety structure that resulted. 

On Dec. 4, however, Mr. Harper persuaded Ms. Jean to ignore Parliamentary tradition and democracy and let him prorogue the House, saving his government. 

The late Jack Layton, leader of the federal NDP in 2008 (Photo: David J. Climenhaga). 

So, who can forget all that? Conservatives in the House of Commons, that’s who. 

On Monday, they rushed en masse to vote for Bloc Leader Yves-François Blanchet’s motion to remind Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government that it is the “legitimate right” of Quebec to decide when to use the Notwithstanding Clause pre-emptively.

“It is solely up to Quebec and the provinces to decide on the use of the Notwithstanding Clause,” the motion read in part. 

Why? Well, Conservatives including their massive Alberta Caucus are obviously prepared to sup with separatists – without demanding the proverbial very long spoon – as long as they think it will hurt Mr. Trudeau’s government.

Beyond that, the Conservatives led by Calgary-born Pierre Poilievre are obviously also more than a little afraid of the Alberta separatists who make up a considerable portion of the base of the United Conservative Party, for all intents and purposes the provincial wing of the federal Conservatives, and a significant part of their own base that might easily turn to a separatist entity like the Maverick Party if they start to act too Canadian

Former Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe (Photo: Asclepias/Wikipedia).

They also know, of course, that Conservative provincial governments across the country are itching to use the Notwithstanding Clause, which allows legislatures to suspend fundamental rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to pre-empt the rights of Canadians when they come in conflict with the party’s ideology. 

Efforts in Ontario and Alberta to destroy the freedom of association that is the foundation of free collective bargaining are an excellent example of what Conservative provincial governments have in mind. 

It was the specific purpose of Mr. Blanchet’s motion to defend Quebec’s odious Bill 21, which forbids public employees to wear garments that are also religious symbols, such as the head coverings traditionally worn by Sikh men and Muslim women.

Arguably, that too is not much of a problem for the Alberta Conservative Caucus, as long as too many Christian symbols aren’t getting caught in the metaphorical crossfire.

Former Governor General Michaëlle Jean (Photo: David J. Climenhaga).

With its glaringly unconstitutional Sovereignty Act, inspired by Mr. Harper’s pre-prime-ministerial Firewall manifesto, Premier Danielle Smith’s UCP Government is vying to become the Canadian champion of this ongoing effort to undermine Canada’s Constitution and Charter

The vote Monday in the House of Commons – in which the Liberals, New Democrats and Greens defeated the assembled sovereigntist parties by 174 to 142 votes – demonstrates that Mr. Poilievre and the Conservatives are willing to undercut Canada to own the Libs.

As predicted, premiers meekly accept federal health deal 

Readers will note that, as predicted in this space, Canada’s premiers have meekly accepted Ottawa’s plan to finance health care for the next decade. 

Last week I asked what the mostly Conservative premiers would do about the offer: “I’ll tell you what they’re going to do. They’re going to take it. They’re going to like it. They’re going to complain with some justice it wasn’t enough. And then they’re going to blame Mr. Trudeau for causing inflation by spending too much.”

So far, they have done everything except complain about inflation. Trust me, that’s coming soon. 

The premiers vowed to ask for more money later, something here in Western Canada they could provide themselves by adopting a reasonable taxation policy. When the time comes, whoever is in charge in Ottawa will remind them of that. 

The deal will see federal funding of health care grow by about $46 billion over the decade. It does little to stand in the way of Conservative efforts to privatize health care delivery. 

Join the Conversation

16 Comments

  1. Yes, the Federal Conservatives, who worked very hard to make the word coalition sound undemocratic and suspect, often liked to make the Bloc into a bogeyman too. That is of course when they weren’t cozy with it themselves to keep Harpers own minority government, but don’t call it a coalition, in power.

    Now the Federal Conservatives are standing up for the not withstanding clause, so they can do noble things like outlawing strikes and restricting minority rights.

    Well I suppose this is not the first time Federal Conservatives have played footsie with Quebec separatists. Occasionally it has worked for them, but more often than not it has got them no where in Quebec and hurt them in the rest of Canada.

    Perhaps with some quasi separatists in power and close to power in Alberta it will have more appeal this time, but I doubt it. I have a feeling this is exactly the sort of thing that will turn of the moderate suburban voters that have eluded them for most the last decade.

    As for the mostly Conservative Premiers very strident campaign over the last several months to get more health care, well it worked- sort of. As the old saying goes, one should be careful what they wish for. With the increased Federal funding, now there will be no one to blame but themselves if the problems with health care persist.

  2. So this is the monster Michaëlle Jean unleashed on Canada when she betrayed the nation by bending to Stephen Harper’s will. The consequences of her decision will forever come back to haunt us.

    Now Harper’s boys and girls want to take down Canada for personal political gain. Who do they serve? I’d like to know. It’s not the people of this country. Maybe they’re emboldened by balloons and Bears in the air?

    1. Although Her Excellency could have rebuffed Harper’s prorogation request and done it without a word of explanation, most of the blame for that affront to parliamentary tradition lies with him: he forced her into a situation of politics which her office is expressly designed to be detached from. It therefore has virtually no equipment to engage politically with any partisan MP, theoretically for as long as any elected parliamentarian is alive to form a cabinet and advise the Sovereign on the state of the nation, especially on the state of its parliamentary democracy.

      Jean didn’t exercise her prerogative and, by tradition and ethical logic, made no comment about her decision—but everyone could see the matter was unabashedly partisan and that the interrogation was initiated by the most biased officer in the whole parliament.

      We can only guess what her reasoning was—like, constitutionally kneecap the country so some shifty spokesperson of the common mob can extend his party’s term? Trade eternity for four years, maybe even less? Such a deal! —yeah, like with the devil..

      I think Harper convinced Jean that the fate of the nation was indeed at stake—because separatists! Who knows what that meant to her, a child refugee from chronic civil war in Haiti. Then he probably convinced her that she was constitutionally bound to take advice only from him as her first minister—even though the sovereign office has consulted with other cabinet minsters and party leaders sitting in the parliament before. Only the Queen could intervene in Jean’s otherwise supreme power to decide ‘yes’ or ‘no‘ without even so much as a single response to the audience granted —and, for that matter, to whomever parliamentarians and whatever legal advice she herself thought relevant.

      Even more curious, the indisputably decisive test was available to her: simply let the parliamentary confidence vote proceed. If the HarperCons lost the confidence of the House, at least Jean’s choices would have even narrowed down to two: see if there was an alternate group of MPs which would commit to passing bills by majority vote or, if not, dissolve the parliament and call an election.

      It seems plain why she didn’t go that route —that is, who bullied her into making a precedent-setting decision instead—but she’s not really allowed to talk about it and I doubt Harper would ever confess to the affront he committed for partisan gain.

  3. Is it fair to call the UCP the CPC’s provincial wing? Does buying a UCP membership automatically make you a member of the CPC?
    I’m asking because we are constantly hearing that being a member of the Alberta NDPs means that you are, willy-nilly, a member of the federal dippers, and thus under the thumb of Jasmeet Singh and party to efforts to destroy the joy and success of all Albertans.

    1. Lars: Fair point. Given that, I have added the phrase “for all intents and purposes” to that sentence. My point is that while there were really differences between the far right CPC and the more moderate Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta, there is no light between the CPC and the UCP. DJC.

  4. Pierre Poilievre is another pseudo conservative and Reformer, who has all kinds of wacky ideas, such as with cryptocurrency, and he will destroy jobs, by doing things like scrapping the CBC. He will also encourage more bad policies, like supporting private for profit healthcare. Where’s the sense in that?

    1. Yeah, but he’ll help the gas huffing heroes of the culture war find a new absurdity to work themselves into a lather over every day, and that’s all they really care about. At this point they very much remind me of drug addicts, only their drug of choice is “self-righteously kicking down at someone who can’t defend themselves.” Too bad we can’t get some Safe Fox News Consuming Sites, but as we all know, harm reduction causes harm increases because moon logic.

  5. Now I have to admit that I’m a fairly well abused child of the farm and the oil patch in Alberta. But that or those facts don’t and definitely can’t make me dislike the music I grew up with. I in fact let all my experiences inform me. Nobody can tear me down or make me into something I’m not. This is my favourite country song. I’ll never be a butcher, but I do eat hot dogs!

  6. I’ve never found the Bloc to be a particularly scary bunch. If anything they tend to be thoughtful moderates on most issues, Bill 21 notwithstanding. But the strange alliance with the CPC is one that the Bloc may have trouble living with. Bill 21 is one thing, but what if anything else? Finding common with the CPC maybe the Bloc’s undoing if they get cavalier with their newfound strength with the CPC.

    This will play well with the crazies in Alberta, but Ontario will be a whole other matter. Is Skippy Pollivere’s lust for power so great he’s going to run to and from the FreeDUMB Convoy into the arms of Québécois nationalists?

    Pollivere has a tendency to make rash decisions before shooting himself in the face. Maybe he’s about to do it again.

  7. Hi Dave
    Thank you for recalling the coup of 2008: my favourite outrage. At the time, the Conservatives patriotically denounced the coalition most strongly on the grounds that separatists would be involved. That argument had wide-spread traction. But for Conservatives, in their hearts, the real deal-breaker was that the NDP (socialists) would be in the coalition. Quelle horreur, indeed.

  8. “Quebec’s odious Bill 21”

    The adoption of Bill 21 in Quebec was the result of a ten-year struggle by progressive forces, notwithstanding the opposition of a small multiculturalist left.
    The idea is to prevent proselytism, mainly in schools, so that any regime like the Duplessis regime of the 1950’s (including Islamic regimes) be impeded as much as possible. And guess what? Catholic bishops still hope that some day, the clock will go backwards and that they will be called “Sa Grandeur” again. Quelle horreur, indeed!

    Multiculturalism may be a real must for Albertan progressives, but elsewhere, it can be nothing more than communautarism, considered as a mild form of generalized racism.

    Needless to say, Albertan separatists, who clearly act as a front for big oil, are not that sexy for most people in Quebec, including hardcore separatists.

    1. I don’t think it’s accurate to call a bill that others and discriminates against vulnerable minorities “progressive.”

      I’ve never seen any evidence to support the claim that Muslims were proselytizing in schools, can you please provide some?

      If it wasn’t the Muslim religion that this law was targeting, how come it’s almost entirely Muslim people who are being harmed? I know enough about Quebec’s history to know they have good reasons to reign in the Catholic church, but this seems a very strange way to do that. Have any Catholics lost their jobs? Are teachers being searched to make sure they aren’t wearing a cross? Has this bill impacted the Catholic church in any way, shape or form?

      As far as the Quebec government’s claim that “this isn’t because we’re racists, it’s because we value secularism,” I would point out there is a very prominent cross on Quebec’s flag. You don’t see Anglos claiming to be against maple trees. I have not read about a single white person losing their job because they wouldn’t remove their religious symbol, can you please provide an example of this happening? If this law is not racist in its intent and application, it ought to have harmed at least one white person, and I bet the media would have reported on it. I don’t speak French so my ability to investigate this is very limited, and I have not had much success engaging with Quebecois folks online or in real life.

      Can you please elaborate on your point about multiculturalism being a mild form of generalized racism?

      Thanks!

      1. Neil,

        Thanks for your observations.

        Different people have different histories. In the huge Paris basin, for instance, newcomers are expected to assimilate as soon as possible (and often suffer from anomie). In England, on the other hand, newcomers tend to congregate and stay among themselves (and integrate very little). The French tendency goes back to the Romans. The English tendency, on the other hand, goes back to the early Anglo-Saxon settlements.

        In the Greater Montreal area, the Paris basin tendency is prevalent. Communautarism does exist, of course, but it is not condoned. Ontario, on the other hand, has a long history of communities living side by side. Ontarians of Irish Catholic descent, for example, spend most of their life among themselves (on a North American scale) and are very careful when they get in touch with other communities. (A part of my family is Ontarian of Irish Catholic descent.)

        Muslims in the Montreal region react differently to local habits. Some (women in particular) see those as a liberation. Others react negatively and would like to change their own habits as little as possible. But with time, things change. Sometimes, the second generation simply assimilates.

        All in all, newcomers tend to adapt to the established population’s habits, the incentive being to get better jobs. In the 1960’s, religious symbols slowly disappeared in Quebec, as the religious congregations understood that their time was over. And Bill 21 simply put that into a law. For Quebecers in general, religion is a private affair. They have no taste for any religious hierarchy’s rule. In that sense, they are certainly islamophobes.

        (And yes, obstinate Catholics do lose their jobs in Quebec. And yes, wearing a religious symbol is a way of proselytizing.)

        1. Maurice,

          Thanks for the reply! I believe that usually when reasonable adults disagree either they are both partly right, or one or both of them is missing important context. Also thanks for the words ‘communautarism’ and ‘anomie’, I am going to have to think about them.

          I’m of two minds about this problem. Firstly, I am very conflicted about Cultural Relativism. I get that different people want to live in different ways, and on its face “you live your way, we live our way, it is not fair or reasonable for either of us to criticize the other because we don’t know what it’s like to be from that culture” seems very tolerant and progressive. I see two potential problems with this – the first is that it denies that there is any such thing as actions that are always immoral or any actions that would be so evil or wrong that someone from outside that culture should oppose them. The second is that it can easily lead to Moral Relativism, which is when we believe that each individual/group creates their own morality and is not answerable to anyone else’s, which effectively creates a power struggle of all against all over whose definition of “morality” ends up mattering.

          On the other hand, Quebec has never (to my knowledge) consented to being in Canada, so I believe Canada has no right to govern the people of Quebec, who have made it very clear that they don’t want to be in Canada and don’t consider themselves Canadian. If I was PM I’d tell everyone “Quebec becomes it’s own country on this date in five years unless it freely chooses to sign onto the Charter, work it out or don’t.” It seems unreasonable and borderline tyrannical to say “Quebec is bad for ignoring a Charter it didn’t sign on to” or “Quebec should not defy the values of a country it does not want to be part of.”

          It is a boggle.

          Anyways, I burned an hour googling and could not find a single instance of a white person, or a Catholic, being affected by this bill. Perhaps that happened and was not reported in English-speaking media, or my google-fu was too weak? I did find this:

          https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/muslim-women-most-affected-by-quebec-s-secularism-law-court-of-appeal-hears-1.6644377 – “Ravon said she could find no examples of anyone in any organization across the province losing their job due to Bill 21 other than Muslim women.”

  9. The neo-right movement consists of neoliberal globalization in the interests of stateless corporatocracy —that is, globalizing neoliberals commandeered moribund conservative parties, at the time (late 1970s) the weakest, therefore most-easily usurped parties on the left-right political spectrum, for the purpose of undermining national sovereignties that regulate private industry and tax profits—especially sovereign democracies where voters have the potential to address industrial pollution and social inequalities in those terms. A typically 40-year paradigmatic episode describes the neo-right arc beginning c. 1980, ascending to its peak c. 2000, and descending to its conclusion c. 2020.

    Proffered as balanced, fair and reasonable, neo-rightism —then known as “neo-conservatism” for the Tory suits its proponents disguised themselves in— introduced right-wing think tanks as counterpart to academe and university-educated civil service which were portrayed as excessively egg-headed and influential in government, and bad for business. It offered so-called “trickledown” as the only feasible alternative to citizen benefit accrued hitherto by organizing and coordinating labour with progressive public policy, then at its zenith. It seemed to voters a reasonable option to achieve the same prosperity to which they were accustomed. The advertising campaign of “leaving more money in taxpayers’ pockets” and “getting government out of the way of Big Business” sold well as long as these expectations appeared viable.

    It went swimmingly at first: the world economy rebounded strongly from global recession of 1981-83, unions were decertified, wages and pensions were clawed back, public services slashed, and the Soviet bogeyman was eliminated by 1992—for over a decade handily excusing the delay of that promised trickledown, the prospect even more promising now that capitalism had finally conquered the globe. Televangelism rapturously proclaimed the triumph of the “moral majority.” The partisan centre-left was ridiculed by referring to ‘liberalism’ as the unmentionable “L-word.”

    But soon the Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11 woke the “morning-in-America” dream-weavers; the idiot hitherto useful, underachieving scion of a former single-term president, read “Mission Accomplished” from his teleprompter as he plunged the US into an unwarranted war from which veterans would again return home like Odysseus to wreak vengeance for their disillusionment. And still no trickledown.

    The centre-left convulsively occupied ideological ground abandoned by the increasingly extreme right—like a DUI crash before the hangover that more and more suspected was coming.

    We Canadians know this because, despite refusing to participate in Iraq, our soldiers did tours of duty in the UN-sanctioned Afghan war only to be disillusioned upon returning home to be disrespected by the Whitehouse’s shadow cabinet here in the Great White North. Fully inured to neo-rightism, the HarperCons had their very own Fraser, the Canadian son of Cato, the American Institute, and affected their own undermining of Canadian sovereignty by exterminating the old ProgCon party for which national patriotism and sovereignty —“Queen and Country”—were paramount, by sequestering portraits of our Monarch and unprecedentedly bullying her personal representative, the Governor General (who can forget that?), and by going straight for democracy’s gonads with electoral cheating and, most worthy of recall today, by passing of the grossly misnamed “Fair Elections Act,” a blatant attempt to suppress voters in the belief that the geriatric cohort of old Tory warhorses zombified by the nominally conservative HarperCons would more reliably get out to vote, suffocate the partisan middle, and leave the alleged far-left and evil Quebec separatists to disaffect voters with goaded caterwauling. Who can forget that the minister responsible for the “Fair Elections Act” was none other that the new leader of the CPC, P “The P” P?

    Suffice to say that the neo-right became discredited because trickledown didn’t happen—in fact, the opposite did: a chasm yawned wider and wider between the obscenely wealthy 1% and the increasingly abject remainder. Worse, the now-constant and consistent reminder that human-made pollution is fomenting a global ecological crisis nags the news almost daily. This kind of globalization is ultimately paid for by those it hurts most to those who profited most from it. That is, while it lasts.

    Now in a pickle, the CPC hypocritically adds to its sovereignty-undermining objective footsie with separatism and Freedumbite radicalism, Charter rights notwithstanding. The country’s broken mainly because of the ones who say it is.

    And that little rat PP can now fairly be referred to by the “C-word.”

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.